tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6555270116664603070..comments2015-03-31T01:22:06.660-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: Can There Be Convincing Nessie Footage?Glasgow Boynoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-663151818425845482012-11-11T09:11:33.461-08:002012-11-11T09:11:33.461-08:00Thanks for the info. Seems to be another dead end ...Thanks for the info. Seems to be another dead end but who knows. Very intriguing though.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-86490587206278091712012-11-10T11:34:12.954-08:002012-11-10T11:34:12.954-08:00Check out these two links:
http://www.lochnessinv...Check out these two links:<br /><br />http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/McRae.htm<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IAKpNKhiRo<br /><br />which should answer all/most of your questions.<br />Glasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-66424461303612810272012-11-10T09:50:20.336-08:002012-11-10T09:50:20.336-08:00Hi GB. You mentioned the MacRae film in this artic...Hi GB. You mentioned the MacRae film in this article and I am sure most of us are aware of the alleged film but what is actual truth regarding this. I can&#39;t seem to find much about it other than it is supposed to be in a bank vault somewhere, (allegedly).Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26403456970975186752012-11-09T16:55:33.803-08:002012-11-09T16:55:33.803-08:00And as badly as Gray photos 2 through 5 turned out...And as badly as Gray photos 2 through 5 turned out, I wish someone had saved them so we could judge for ourselves! Oh well.<br /><br />That the second Wilson photo shows a change in the angle of the &quot;neck&quot; to the water, AND a change in the angle of the &quot;head&quot; relative to the &quot;neck&quot; is possibly the biggest reason that the hoax story may itself be a hoax.<br />Steve Plambeckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-43320998489911788042012-11-08T06:18:01.273-08:002012-11-08T06:18:01.273-08:00There are sequential pictures out there but their ...There are sequential pictures out there but their authenticity is disputed.<br /><br />R.K.Wilson (1934) 2 pictures<br />Peter MacNab (1955) 2 pictures (one destroyed)<br />James Gray (2001) 5 pictures<br />Roy Johnston (2002) at least 5 pictures<br /><br />and perhaps more<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-43195626354786341372012-11-08T05:34:42.006-08:002012-11-08T05:34:42.006-08:00Consider this: the loch ness monster is reported b...Consider this: the loch ness monster is reported by &quot;observers&quot; as being anywhere from 30 to 90 feet long. If this thing emerged out of the water long enough for someone to take pictures of its entire neck, wouldn&#39;t it stand to reason that they would have time to take multiple pictures? It would probably take at least 5 seconds for it to completely disappear under the water again. Why are there no sequential photos?Fibrogirlhttp://www.squidoo.com/loch-ness-monster-for-childrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-89925844855949666022012-11-07T11:53:42.300-08:002012-11-07T11:53:42.300-08:00Clear footage of the LNM entering the Loch from on...Clear footage of the LNM entering the Loch from one of the beaches at the same time as being witnessed by numerous people might just sway many disbelievers into a rethink but there will always be people out there with wonderful imaginations who can explain even the obvious away using the good old fashioned clutching at straws technique, when what is really needed is some straightforward thinking. As Sherlock Holmes use to say, &quot;when one has eliminated all other factors, the one which remains must be the truth&quot;Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-36278925400285959852012-11-07T01:48:02.865-08:002012-11-07T01:48:02.865-08:00If by &quot;convincing&quot; we mean convincing to...If by &quot;convincing&quot; we mean convincing to the world at large and the scientific community in particular, I think that would be very, very difficult for any new footage in this digital age. Authentic footage would be assumed to be fakery too sophisticated to detect. Vintage footage on the other hand that&#39;s been viewed since prior to the digital era and has an established provenance would stand a better chance, but it would have to show something really definitive, something unquestionable, but there doesn&#39;t seem to be any of that around. At least not that we&#39;re aware of. The irony would be if a tourist in say the 1940&#39;s caught something convincing in a vacation photo or home movie, but never realized what they had and it&#39;s sitting in a moldy box in someone&#39;s attic, never to see they light of day.Steve Plambeckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.com